Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Morality of Babies
In the article “The Moral Life of Babies” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?ref=homepage&src=me&pagewanted=all) , written by Yale professor Paul Bloom, he discusses the innate foundation of morality that babies seemingly have. As seen by previous blog posts, my infatuation with moralities’ origin in the human mind has been the subject of several postings, but I feel so compelled by the subject that I can not stop poking and prodding the subject in hopes of a satisfying answer . The article discusses how several tests were conducted on babies to better understand the cognitive skills of a babies’ mind. With the help of the several experiments carried out in this article, it has been concluded by Bloom that “humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. With the help of well-designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone.” When I first read this, I felt quite comforted by this notion of a basic moral sense that all babies have. It has been quite common to assume that babies were sheer bundles of ignorance, failing to harbor an understanding on the basic rules of the universe, but Bloom insist that babies have expectations rooted in intellect, which can be used to learn and comprehend information at an alarmingly fast rate. Although morality is relative to the culture one functions in, there seems to be very bare-bones morality recognition by babies. In several experiments, babies understood when actions considered wrong were committed, and identified the negative occurrences as anomalies to what was expected and accepted. The article focuses heavily on compassion, which seems to be a key factor in shaping morality as babies get older. Our empathy towards others can be amplified as we get older, resulting in the virtues associated with excellence. While babies do not have the higher moral order that adults develop as they develop their intellect, they do have a distinct temperament in regards to morals that serves as the groundwork for the future. “As David Hume argued, mere rationality can’t be the foundation of morality, since our most basic desires are neither rational nor irrational. “ ’Tis not contrary to reason,” he wrote, “to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.” To have a genuinely moral system, in other words, some things first have to matter, and what we see in babies is the development of mattering.”Babies fail to make decisions of morality due to some rationalization in the mind, but based on pure emotion of instincts. Decisions for babies boil down to the simplicity of natural desires. What a baby deems as important will be the foundation of how they harvest their moral reason. A person’s way of thinking is a direct product of his/her inclination towards morality. “Babies possess certain moral foundations — the capacity and willingness to judge the actions of others, some sense of justice, gut responses to altruism and nastiness.” These initial reactions are then acted upon by society to continuously shape our thought process. Then when our ethical guidelines are set in place based on our recognitions, we can transcend our minds by implementing the intellectual virtues that we must learn.
Friendship
Reading Aristotle’s description of friendship has really opened my eyes to the kinds of relationships I partake in. It seems rather clear to me that most of my friendships are based on a frail foundation, with me unfortunately contributing to a minimal amount of meaningful relationships.
I have found that friendships of utility are aplenty in my life since I am a young, ambitious college student, whom is attempting to further my career and livelihood. Not only is it imperative to have some sort of friendship with teachers and fellow peers, it is a downright necessity. Building relationships with teachers is necessary in order to have a full understanding of what is required to be successful in a given class. Furthermore, these teachers can even help me by writing me a recommendation for medical school that could better help me convince others of my abilities. Teachers have a wide range of utility. Having multiple friends within a classroom setting has also proven to be very useful because it allows for you to bounce ideas off your fellow classmates and gain information that you had failed to collect. College education is a difficult practice with questions abound, therefore it is helpful to have friends that I can confide in and question. Friendships of utility are further observed in confines of the various jobs I have had. When you are spending eight plus hours with a group of people, it is to your advantage to enjoy the company of those you are working with. As a Pre-med student I have only been able to work during the summer at anyplace that is willing to hire me, which has put me in a range of interesting situations. For example, last summer I worked at a car dealership where I was surrounded by a wide array of unique people. For the most part, I was forced to have friendly relationships with my coworkers, whom I vastly disagreed with on their decisions and actions. I was friends with most of these people for the sole purpose of my comfort. The relationships aforementioned were clearly friendships of utility because when I no longer was in a state of need from these people, our friendship swiftly dissipated.
Friendships of use have been prevalent in my life, but I have found that relationships for pleasure have covered a bulk of my friendships as well. When you ask your friends why they are indeed your friend, it seems that they tend to give some explanation as to why they enjoy being around you. They will stroke your ego by complimenting you, saying you make them laugh or compliment your ability to entertain them entertaining, but in all reality they give a self-serving reason as to why they are your friend. It is no secret that people are intrinsically narcissistic, so doesn’t it make sense that your friends are in a friendship with you for their own personal reasons? Friendships of pleasure are abundant in my life, but I believe a minute amount of these relationships are the causation of friendships of the good.
After reading Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics I became dismayed to come to the realization that I maybe (emphasis on maybe) had one or two friendships of the good. I began to wonder if I would even qualify to have this sort of relationship since I have yet to fully harness virtue. With the previous fact set aside, I have concluded that there are a very few amount of relationships that I can say I truly value and care for the well being of the other person in the relationship. It takes years and much needed effort to evolve a relationship from one of pleasure into one of the good. To get to the point where you can relate to and understand a person on such a level that you set aside personal motive for the other person takes a commitment that is unparalleled. Friendships of the good are a rare occurrence, but pay truly satisfying dividends. I will continue to keep in mind Aristotle’s assessment on friendship so that I can develop friendships that are the essence of good.
I have found that friendships of utility are aplenty in my life since I am a young, ambitious college student, whom is attempting to further my career and livelihood. Not only is it imperative to have some sort of friendship with teachers and fellow peers, it is a downright necessity. Building relationships with teachers is necessary in order to have a full understanding of what is required to be successful in a given class. Furthermore, these teachers can even help me by writing me a recommendation for medical school that could better help me convince others of my abilities. Teachers have a wide range of utility. Having multiple friends within a classroom setting has also proven to be very useful because it allows for you to bounce ideas off your fellow classmates and gain information that you had failed to collect. College education is a difficult practice with questions abound, therefore it is helpful to have friends that I can confide in and question. Friendships of utility are further observed in confines of the various jobs I have had. When you are spending eight plus hours with a group of people, it is to your advantage to enjoy the company of those you are working with. As a Pre-med student I have only been able to work during the summer at anyplace that is willing to hire me, which has put me in a range of interesting situations. For example, last summer I worked at a car dealership where I was surrounded by a wide array of unique people. For the most part, I was forced to have friendly relationships with my coworkers, whom I vastly disagreed with on their decisions and actions. I was friends with most of these people for the sole purpose of my comfort. The relationships aforementioned were clearly friendships of utility because when I no longer was in a state of need from these people, our friendship swiftly dissipated.
Friendships of use have been prevalent in my life, but I have found that relationships for pleasure have covered a bulk of my friendships as well. When you ask your friends why they are indeed your friend, it seems that they tend to give some explanation as to why they enjoy being around you. They will stroke your ego by complimenting you, saying you make them laugh or compliment your ability to entertain them entertaining, but in all reality they give a self-serving reason as to why they are your friend. It is no secret that people are intrinsically narcissistic, so doesn’t it make sense that your friends are in a friendship with you for their own personal reasons? Friendships of pleasure are abundant in my life, but I believe a minute amount of these relationships are the causation of friendships of the good.
After reading Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics I became dismayed to come to the realization that I maybe (emphasis on maybe) had one or two friendships of the good. I began to wonder if I would even qualify to have this sort of relationship since I have yet to fully harness virtue. With the previous fact set aside, I have concluded that there are a very few amount of relationships that I can say I truly value and care for the well being of the other person in the relationship. It takes years and much needed effort to evolve a relationship from one of pleasure into one of the good. To get to the point where you can relate to and understand a person on such a level that you set aside personal motive for the other person takes a commitment that is unparalleled. Friendships of the good are a rare occurrence, but pay truly satisfying dividends. I will continue to keep in mind Aristotle’s assessment on friendship so that I can develop friendships that are the essence of good.
My Rant on Being
After reviewing for the final and re-reading material on the Sophists I felt compelled to address the Sophist movement from Being, that previous philosophers such as Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes were so concerned with, towards the commodity that is known as humanity. My interest for the subject of the “arche” has always run thin, which can explain my lack of blog posting on these Pre-Socratic Philosophers. I never felt any drive to critique a philosophy that was primarily focused on water, because it seems so nonsensical and irrelevant. The composition of the world and natural laws of the universe are obviously an important knowledge to have, but I dreaded that so many of the philosophers we have studied defined life in such a way that neglects the miraculous being of humanity. Maybe I do not fancy physics for the same reasons that I do not fancy the philosophies such as Thales; the study of matter should take a backseat to obtaining insight on living a happy and virtuous life. Human beings have been reduced to mere entities and compositions of various other things, when I think the prominence of a much more practical philosophy should be emphasized to a greater extent. As mentioned in my introduction blog post, I have always felt the need to take a much more pragmatic concern with philosophy. A philosophy that it can be applied to my life in ways that is relevant to me in my current situation. It is enjoyable to read philosophy such as Aristotle’s, which lay out a precise formula to lead a life that is in pursuance of excellence. We can examine the natural laws of the universe only so far, but the examination of humanities’ cognitive abilities and autonomy can have a much more profound effect. Life is relative, therefore man’s perceptions are reliant on his/her daily endeavors and the focal point of one’s life should be on his/her affinity to lead a life with a strict sense of diligence and discernment so that we can live in a harmonious unity with those around us.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Deviation
In the recent weeks I have been heavily reflecting upon the nature of virtues and whether they are inherent or taught to one by his/her experiences. As seen by my previous blog entries, I have come to the conclusion that people are born with predispositions and a varying affinity for human excellence, with society shaping the majority of our perceptions. The more and more I think about it and the more people I ask about concerning the subject matter, it has become rather apparent to me that the many people believe we are conditioned by our culture to a great extent.
Last week in Political Science my teacher had mentioned how desensitized our modern society has become. He referenced the TV show Samantha Who?, which is about a successful businesswomen who has developed amnesia. As she begins to live her life with ignorance to how she used to live, she becomes dismayed to learn how she treated those around her. She then tries to compensate for her previous morally questionable actions by treating those she had wronged with a newly found niceness. The protagonist of this story, Samantha, had become so heavily influenced by outside forces that she had greatly deviated from the values that had been originally instilled upon her.
This TV show is a testament to how impactful the limitations of society are on people. People conform to the general consensus or the skewed view of those we admire and look to imitate. We see the actions of these around us, and then act in accordance. It is as simple as the cliché “Monkey see, monkey do.” If enough people agree on a subject, the majority of people will eventually fall in line.
It is ironic that I referenced a TV show to display my point, when so many TV shows actually deceitfully calibrate people’s moral compass towards ill-advised guidelines. I have no doubt that Plato would dub Television as the modern day Homer. Increasingly large amounts of the people own a television and are convinced to act a certain way by the fictional characters, whose mere purpose is to entertain us.
Furthermore, in the article “Point of View”, previously discussed in the last blog post, I though it was interesting when the student reminds the professor “of the willingness of the leaders of German and Italian universities to embrace Nazi and Fascist idea.” These wonderfully brilliant people had been inhibited by society to readily implement these radical ideals into their way of thinking. They began to define what was a just action based on the general consensus. It is scary to analyze how adversely one can be affected by the ridiculous ideas of a few powerful men. One can truly distort how they view life to align with his/her ideas that one would previously oppose.
Last week in Political Science my teacher had mentioned how desensitized our modern society has become. He referenced the TV show Samantha Who?, which is about a successful businesswomen who has developed amnesia. As she begins to live her life with ignorance to how she used to live, she becomes dismayed to learn how she treated those around her. She then tries to compensate for her previous morally questionable actions by treating those she had wronged with a newly found niceness. The protagonist of this story, Samantha, had become so heavily influenced by outside forces that she had greatly deviated from the values that had been originally instilled upon her.
This TV show is a testament to how impactful the limitations of society are on people. People conform to the general consensus or the skewed view of those we admire and look to imitate. We see the actions of these around us, and then act in accordance. It is as simple as the cliché “Monkey see, monkey do.” If enough people agree on a subject, the majority of people will eventually fall in line.
It is ironic that I referenced a TV show to display my point, when so many TV shows actually deceitfully calibrate people’s moral compass towards ill-advised guidelines. I have no doubt that Plato would dub Television as the modern day Homer. Increasingly large amounts of the people own a television and are convinced to act a certain way by the fictional characters, whose mere purpose is to entertain us.
Furthermore, in the article “Point of View”, previously discussed in the last blog post, I though it was interesting when the student reminds the professor “of the willingness of the leaders of German and Italian universities to embrace Nazi and Fascist idea.” These wonderfully brilliant people had been inhibited by society to readily implement these radical ideals into their way of thinking. They began to define what was a just action based on the general consensus. It is scary to analyze how adversely one can be affected by the ridiculous ideas of a few powerful men. One can truly distort how they view life to align with his/her ideas that one would previously oppose.
Fighting a Losing Battle?
In the article “Point of View” by Robert Coles the disparity between intellect and character is discussed. A Harvard professor gives a detailed account of a student of his whom had discovered the unfortunate truth about morality; just because one has knowledge and understanding of morality, does not mean that they will necessarily put to use these teachings in their daily actions.
Students due not utilize the morality taught in class primarily because of humanities’ inherent fear of change. The exploration of a new territory is noticeably met with unwillingness due to apprehension. People develop a comfort with how they life their life through habituation, therefore it is only normal for there to be difficulty when attempting to act justly in accordance with one’s intellect. I can easily identify with a student whom attains a plethora of knowledge concerning morality and ethics, then simply ignores it. It would be rather easy to focus on getting a good grade in my Classical Philosophy class without vigorously examining the ideas in the various works we have studied and actually applying them. I have developed my way of thinking throughout my last twenty years, therefore there is a certain level of reassurance with how I live my life. My morality is deeply ingrained within me, so how can I be expected to change my very being after reading a few insightful collections of works? I must readily question my deepest beliefs and ethics that I have used as guidelines to live my life, so that I can slowly improve upon them. One must have an active acceptance to change their autonomy in order to employ the dynamically constructed intellectual philosophies they have been so graciously taught.
Moreover, I find it interesting that schools have attempted to make the connection between character and intellect in the feeblest of ways. Now, Schools focus less upon integrating ethics into ones life, and more upon having students regurgitating a select bit of information for a grade. School has become systematic. As the professor in the article discussed, there is a common sentiment among schools that morality is acquired at home rather than in the confines of academia. I do not think schools can make major leeway in shaping a majority of student’s morality, so I do not really fault them for their reluctance. Small victories take place in bridging the gap between intellect and morality with simple exercises such as this very blog I am writing for my classical philosophy class. It allows me to try and relate the philosophy I am taught in class with the daily happenings of my life. By contemplating how the teachings of these philosophers can have a direct correlation with my life, I am more likely to merge by intellect with my character.
It is such a steep mountain to climb because our morality and how we act is manipulated at molded by so many outside forces, so any school trying to link moral action and intellect has a magnitude of competition. Realistically, schools tend to have a minimal impact on people’s morality, but it seems that a true change in creed only occurs when one either is actively looking to refine their beliefs, or when one has experienced an impactful experience that resonates with them and forces them to change.
Students due not utilize the morality taught in class primarily because of humanities’ inherent fear of change. The exploration of a new territory is noticeably met with unwillingness due to apprehension. People develop a comfort with how they life their life through habituation, therefore it is only normal for there to be difficulty when attempting to act justly in accordance with one’s intellect. I can easily identify with a student whom attains a plethora of knowledge concerning morality and ethics, then simply ignores it. It would be rather easy to focus on getting a good grade in my Classical Philosophy class without vigorously examining the ideas in the various works we have studied and actually applying them. I have developed my way of thinking throughout my last twenty years, therefore there is a certain level of reassurance with how I live my life. My morality is deeply ingrained within me, so how can I be expected to change my very being after reading a few insightful collections of works? I must readily question my deepest beliefs and ethics that I have used as guidelines to live my life, so that I can slowly improve upon them. One must have an active acceptance to change their autonomy in order to employ the dynamically constructed intellectual philosophies they have been so graciously taught.
Moreover, I find it interesting that schools have attempted to make the connection between character and intellect in the feeblest of ways. Now, Schools focus less upon integrating ethics into ones life, and more upon having students regurgitating a select bit of information for a grade. School has become systematic. As the professor in the article discussed, there is a common sentiment among schools that morality is acquired at home rather than in the confines of academia. I do not think schools can make major leeway in shaping a majority of student’s morality, so I do not really fault them for their reluctance. Small victories take place in bridging the gap between intellect and morality with simple exercises such as this very blog I am writing for my classical philosophy class. It allows me to try and relate the philosophy I am taught in class with the daily happenings of my life. By contemplating how the teachings of these philosophers can have a direct correlation with my life, I am more likely to merge by intellect with my character.
It is such a steep mountain to climb because our morality and how we act is manipulated at molded by so many outside forces, so any school trying to link moral action and intellect has a magnitude of competition. Realistically, schools tend to have a minimal impact on people’s morality, but it seems that a true change in creed only occurs when one either is actively looking to refine their beliefs, or when one has experienced an impactful experience that resonates with them and forces them to change.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
The Magnificence of Understanding
When questioned in class about the most beautiful thing or idea I could think of, I can not deny that I had trouble coming up with my ideal notion of beauty. When given the entirety of a complete thirty seconds to come up with my one perfect description of beauty, I was not as eloquent in my retort as I would have preferred. In the last several days I have been pondering my off-the-cuff answer as well as other’s views on the most beautiful thing they can imagine, in my attempt to fully dissect beauty.
I found that a majority of people typically tend to define beauty in the physical natures of the world. As mentioned by Dr. Bowery, people tend to say things such as the sun, the stars, mountains, and rainbows. No doubt all of these things must be viewed for their natural and minimalistic beauty, yet I can not bring my self to put full stock in notion that aesthetics are the most beautiful thing known to man. It honestly feels quite superficial.
Moreover, I fear that many people have retreated to their fortress of the divine when stating that god is the single, most beautiful thing they can imagine. The perception of a single transcendent, allegedly loving god obviously sets people up to believe that god is the essence of beauty. Since I am completely ignorant of the real god (if he/she/it exist) and so is everyone else, I am compelled to deem god irrelevant. It is unfortunately not in my power to rule god as beautiful or not, considering I do not have the power to truly understand god (if there is one).
In class I responded “understanding” because I needed a word that was rather ambiguous, but could encompass all of my ideas of beauty. I knew that by using “understating” as my definition I would be able to give multiple interpretations for this one word. In retrospect there can be two different definitions to “understanding” that I find to be vital components of my idea of beauty.
Firstly, one can have an insightful understanding on the interworking of the world, allowing them to essentially be masters of philosophy. Socrates, I am sure would be relatively happy with this train of thought. The understanding of a healthy union between virtue and intellect enamors humans to procure the highest beauty.
Furthermore, I said “understanding” when thinking about the understanding that is necessary for a deep emotional relationship that one partakes in with another human being. The most intimate relationships are between people with a profound level of comfort emotionally and mentally. In a relationship, one must understand the other person’s perceptions and decisions, so that when that person makes a mistake the other person can put their partner’s mind at ease. All humans are judgmental no matter how hard they try not to be, but by having understanding for someone, you make them realize that they will not be ostracized for the faults they make, but loved for the person they are.
I may be rather self-involved when defining beauty as a solely human experience, but vanity is fundamental to all humans and I believe it really must be for people to survive. Everybody’s egotism levels of at a different plateau, but to some extent it must be undoubtedly necessary. Although my explanation may be biased, after thinking more into my idea that “understanding” is the most beautiful thing in the universe, I am rather pleased with my answer that I gave in class.
I found that a majority of people typically tend to define beauty in the physical natures of the world. As mentioned by Dr. Bowery, people tend to say things such as the sun, the stars, mountains, and rainbows. No doubt all of these things must be viewed for their natural and minimalistic beauty, yet I can not bring my self to put full stock in notion that aesthetics are the most beautiful thing known to man. It honestly feels quite superficial.
Moreover, I fear that many people have retreated to their fortress of the divine when stating that god is the single, most beautiful thing they can imagine. The perception of a single transcendent, allegedly loving god obviously sets people up to believe that god is the essence of beauty. Since I am completely ignorant of the real god (if he/she/it exist) and so is everyone else, I am compelled to deem god irrelevant. It is unfortunately not in my power to rule god as beautiful or not, considering I do not have the power to truly understand god (if there is one).
In class I responded “understanding” because I needed a word that was rather ambiguous, but could encompass all of my ideas of beauty. I knew that by using “understating” as my definition I would be able to give multiple interpretations for this one word. In retrospect there can be two different definitions to “understanding” that I find to be vital components of my idea of beauty.
Firstly, one can have an insightful understanding on the interworking of the world, allowing them to essentially be masters of philosophy. Socrates, I am sure would be relatively happy with this train of thought. The understanding of a healthy union between virtue and intellect enamors humans to procure the highest beauty.
Furthermore, I said “understanding” when thinking about the understanding that is necessary for a deep emotional relationship that one partakes in with another human being. The most intimate relationships are between people with a profound level of comfort emotionally and mentally. In a relationship, one must understand the other person’s perceptions and decisions, so that when that person makes a mistake the other person can put their partner’s mind at ease. All humans are judgmental no matter how hard they try not to be, but by having understanding for someone, you make them realize that they will not be ostracized for the faults they make, but loved for the person they are.
I may be rather self-involved when defining beauty as a solely human experience, but vanity is fundamental to all humans and I believe it really must be for people to survive. Everybody’s egotism levels of at a different plateau, but to some extent it must be undoubtedly necessary. Although my explanation may be biased, after thinking more into my idea that “understanding” is the most beautiful thing in the universe, I am rather pleased with my answer that I gave in class.
My Struggle with Morality
Whilst watching the brilliantly crafted film “Shutter Island” directed by Martin Scorsese, I became interested in the conversation between Leonardo Dicaprio’s character, Teddy, and John Carroll Lynch’s character, Deputy Warden McPherson. The following conversation took place between the two, after Deputy McPherson had finally met up with Teddy, whom had been searching the island for clues regarding the intentions of the mental facility:
Deputy McPherson: God loves violence.
Teddy: I, I hadn’t noticed.
Deputy McPherson: Ha sure you have, why else would there be so much of it? It’s in us. It’s what we are. God gave us violence to wage in his honor.
Teddy: I thought God gave us moral order.
Deputy McPherson: There is no moral order as pure as this storm. There is no moral order at all. There’s just this: “Can my violence conquer your violence?”
Teddy: I’m not violent.
Deputy McPherson: Yes you are. You’re as violent as they come. I know this because I’m as violent as they come. With the constraints of society were lifted and if I was all that stood between you and a meal you would crack my skull with a rock and eat my meaty parts. Wouldn’t ya? Naehring thinks your harmless and can be controlled but I know different.
Teddy: You don’t know me.
Deputy McPherson: Oh I know you. We’ve known each other for centuries. If I was to sink my teeth into your eye right now, would you be able to stop me before I blinded you?
Teddy: Give it a try.
Deputy McPherson: That’s the spirit.
Deputy McPherson closely resembles the “Sophist” in his belief that ethical values are solely dependent upon the common values set in place by society. For McPherson there is no moral order, and in the absence of a moral authority put in place by society, each person will obey their instincts to survive. I admittedly believe that a strong argument can be made to strike down the notion of an absolute truth within all people. The idea that humans are a blank slate when they are born, and then trained to have a select amount of beliefs has always been tempting to me, yet seemingly still incomplete.
I am bothered by the idea that there is no intrinsic moral order that everyone with functioning facilities will share. There must be a fundamental set of principles that we as rational beings conclude to be imperative to life. I imagine at one point in the human history, people’s mere goal was to survive on a world that was in constant fluctuation. Essentially whatever means that were necessary to survive were accepted. Violence was certainty necessary for humans whom lacked social order to survive. As beings with an unparalleled intellect, a general set of rules concerning morality must have been mutually developed over time. The dynamics of human relationships are heavily reliant on the relational aspects between humans, therefore order is necessary. Humans were equipped with rationality, to have an eventual development of a common morality.
All people are born with preferences. A natural way of thinking and decision making are basic values that every person has. A definite moral order was not set in place from the beginning, with everyone accepting a finite list of things that were and were not morally acceptable. There is a certain level of moral order that has not been tapped into until humans were able to synergize modern intellect, and morality. As humans evolved intellectually, they saw the need to put in place moral order so that we could live in a much more unified way. Now when humans are born into a time where there is a set of rules and guidelines one must follow to function in society, they have the choice to follow these rules or not, all depending on their preference. What is conceived as morally permissible is different for each person depending on their own natural inclination, but now it is also subject to the limitations of society.
Virtue can’t be taught in the sense that our preferences can’t be taught to us. Once morality is taught to us on a very basic level, we make decisions to follow it or not based on preference, but once we make our decisions having been informed of it, there is usually no going back. You are born with a perspective on things that I believe can allow you to be moral or not.
Deputy McPherson: God loves violence.
Teddy: I, I hadn’t noticed.
Deputy McPherson: Ha sure you have, why else would there be so much of it? It’s in us. It’s what we are. God gave us violence to wage in his honor.
Teddy: I thought God gave us moral order.
Deputy McPherson: There is no moral order as pure as this storm. There is no moral order at all. There’s just this: “Can my violence conquer your violence?”
Teddy: I’m not violent.
Deputy McPherson: Yes you are. You’re as violent as they come. I know this because I’m as violent as they come. With the constraints of society were lifted and if I was all that stood between you and a meal you would crack my skull with a rock and eat my meaty parts. Wouldn’t ya? Naehring thinks your harmless and can be controlled but I know different.
Teddy: You don’t know me.
Deputy McPherson: Oh I know you. We’ve known each other for centuries. If I was to sink my teeth into your eye right now, would you be able to stop me before I blinded you?
Teddy: Give it a try.
Deputy McPherson: That’s the spirit.
Deputy McPherson closely resembles the “Sophist” in his belief that ethical values are solely dependent upon the common values set in place by society. For McPherson there is no moral order, and in the absence of a moral authority put in place by society, each person will obey their instincts to survive. I admittedly believe that a strong argument can be made to strike down the notion of an absolute truth within all people. The idea that humans are a blank slate when they are born, and then trained to have a select amount of beliefs has always been tempting to me, yet seemingly still incomplete.
I am bothered by the idea that there is no intrinsic moral order that everyone with functioning facilities will share. There must be a fundamental set of principles that we as rational beings conclude to be imperative to life. I imagine at one point in the human history, people’s mere goal was to survive on a world that was in constant fluctuation. Essentially whatever means that were necessary to survive were accepted. Violence was certainty necessary for humans whom lacked social order to survive. As beings with an unparalleled intellect, a general set of rules concerning morality must have been mutually developed over time. The dynamics of human relationships are heavily reliant on the relational aspects between humans, therefore order is necessary. Humans were equipped with rationality, to have an eventual development of a common morality.
All people are born with preferences. A natural way of thinking and decision making are basic values that every person has. A definite moral order was not set in place from the beginning, with everyone accepting a finite list of things that were and were not morally acceptable. There is a certain level of moral order that has not been tapped into until humans were able to synergize modern intellect, and morality. As humans evolved intellectually, they saw the need to put in place moral order so that we could live in a much more unified way. Now when humans are born into a time where there is a set of rules and guidelines one must follow to function in society, they have the choice to follow these rules or not, all depending on their preference. What is conceived as morally permissible is different for each person depending on their own natural inclination, but now it is also subject to the limitations of society.
Virtue can’t be taught in the sense that our preferences can’t be taught to us. Once morality is taught to us on a very basic level, we make decisions to follow it or not based on preference, but once we make our decisions having been informed of it, there is usually no going back. You are born with a perspective on things that I believe can allow you to be moral or not.
The Beauty of Numbers
After a weekend primarily consumed in my studies of physics and chemistry, I could not help myself from thinking about Pythagoras’ conviction that numbers compose the structure of the universe. I recall vaguely at the beginning of the semester Dr. Bowery mentioning how scientist provide answers to questions to that philosophers form. To an extent there is some truth this claim. For example, physics allows for a better understanding of the natural order of the universe through the harmony of numbers.
Pythagoreans believed that the code that the universe was written was using numbers that are in a harmonious relationship. Furthermore, numbers were worshipped by Pythagoreans because of the immutable tendencies of numbers, which in their mind, supported the spirituality of numbers. I believe that Pythagoras’ ideology is clearly evident when taking into account modern sciences such as Biology, Chemistry and Physics.
In Physics, an immense majority of equations are formed with two variables that are proportional or inversely proportional and then by inserting a constant that will be uniform for every measurement of the other two variables. Varying numbers are joined together to form ratios that define the very composition of life. Sound waves are longitudinal waves where Amplitude, frequency, displacement, length and speed of the wave all being interconnected to form a harmonious sound. The conservation of energy is an essential facet of Physics because the change of energy explains the state of all objects and energy must always be in equilibrium. There is certainty a certain level of harmony that must be maintained by numbers that compose the interworking s of the cosmos. Chemistry as well as physics puts an emphasis on equilibrium which requires numbers to essentially be in harmony with one another. In Biology, subatomic articles such as protons, neutrons and electrons must also be in various amounts to form different elements; therefore different objects are composed because of the concord between different particles.
Moreover, Rene Descartes held mathematics in his high regards. In the Discourse on Method, he states “I delighted most of all in mathematics because of the certainty and evidence of its reasonings.” Obviously the mathematical objects known as numbers play the key role in math, therefore math’s certainty is heavily reliant on numbers. Descartes understands the utilization of numbers to provide evidence can be a superior foundation for the universe.
The relationship between numbers is critical to how things are formed and work in the world. A sense on synchronization can be directly observed in Physics, with the relationship of different measurements and numbers being proportional to each other, thus explaining the elementary principles of the universe.
Pythagoreans believed that the code that the universe was written was using numbers that are in a harmonious relationship. Furthermore, numbers were worshipped by Pythagoreans because of the immutable tendencies of numbers, which in their mind, supported the spirituality of numbers. I believe that Pythagoras’ ideology is clearly evident when taking into account modern sciences such as Biology, Chemistry and Physics.
In Physics, an immense majority of equations are formed with two variables that are proportional or inversely proportional and then by inserting a constant that will be uniform for every measurement of the other two variables. Varying numbers are joined together to form ratios that define the very composition of life. Sound waves are longitudinal waves where Amplitude, frequency, displacement, length and speed of the wave all being interconnected to form a harmonious sound. The conservation of energy is an essential facet of Physics because the change of energy explains the state of all objects and energy must always be in equilibrium. There is certainty a certain level of harmony that must be maintained by numbers that compose the interworking s of the cosmos. Chemistry as well as physics puts an emphasis on equilibrium which requires numbers to essentially be in harmony with one another. In Biology, subatomic articles such as protons, neutrons and electrons must also be in various amounts to form different elements; therefore different objects are composed because of the concord between different particles.
Moreover, Rene Descartes held mathematics in his high regards. In the Discourse on Method, he states “I delighted most of all in mathematics because of the certainty and evidence of its reasonings.” Obviously the mathematical objects known as numbers play the key role in math, therefore math’s certainty is heavily reliant on numbers. Descartes understands the utilization of numbers to provide evidence can be a superior foundation for the universe.
The relationship between numbers is critical to how things are formed and work in the world. A sense on synchronization can be directly observed in Physics, with the relationship of different measurements and numbers being proportional to each other, thus explaining the elementary principles of the universe.
My House Of Cards
I am at the point in my life where I am attempting to reevaluate my own ideologies that I had been living life by, while taking into account the immense amount of new information I have been exposed to. I obviously had my own philosophy prior to college, but after studying the brilliant ideas of philosophers such as Plato, I find it important to utilize these new viewpoints to better craft my own ideas. As we had discussed in class, I feel like I am willingly giving my mind to my teachers and various other people whose literature I am required to master, with little or no fight. All of this new information effects be in ways that are quite obvious and sometimes in ways that are much more discrete.
A plethora of people come into college with naïve openness to all of the new material being introduced to them, myself included. I came into college with a relatively blank slate when it came to subjects such as the history of philosophy. Having a novice understanding of subjects, I have found it hard to sift through all of the information that I am being fed. A diverse amount of people’s rhetoric is now being introduced to me, which can render my mind malleable to an entire new way of thinking. Similar to Apollodorus in Plato’s Symposium, I felt I had “drifted aimlessly” until I began to further inquire about my decisions, views, and way of life in general.
There can be a paralyzing sense of helplessness when studying new subjects. I have found the vulnerability to my professors can be similar to my vulnerability I experience when I watch the movies, politics, or even the news on TV. Everyone has their own agenda they are trying to push on you, and only when one does there own research can they form an opinion really worth having. It is easy to rip off your favorite person of TV or professor and regurgitate everything you have heard to someone else.
An extensive examination on your life is necessary to carefully structure how you choose to confirm your lifestyle. It takes diligence and self-control to be exposed to a wide array of new ideas that can affect me so greatly at a time when I am most susceptible to other people’s beliefs. I must lay down a robust frame work for my way of thinking so that I can then build upon it with innovative ideas from outside forces.
A plethora of people come into college with naïve openness to all of the new material being introduced to them, myself included. I came into college with a relatively blank slate when it came to subjects such as the history of philosophy. Having a novice understanding of subjects, I have found it hard to sift through all of the information that I am being fed. A diverse amount of people’s rhetoric is now being introduced to me, which can render my mind malleable to an entire new way of thinking. Similar to Apollodorus in Plato’s Symposium, I felt I had “drifted aimlessly” until I began to further inquire about my decisions, views, and way of life in general.
There can be a paralyzing sense of helplessness when studying new subjects. I have found the vulnerability to my professors can be similar to my vulnerability I experience when I watch the movies, politics, or even the news on TV. Everyone has their own agenda they are trying to push on you, and only when one does there own research can they form an opinion really worth having. It is easy to rip off your favorite person of TV or professor and regurgitate everything you have heard to someone else.
An extensive examination on your life is necessary to carefully structure how you choose to confirm your lifestyle. It takes diligence and self-control to be exposed to a wide array of new ideas that can affect me so greatly at a time when I am most susceptible to other people’s beliefs. I must lay down a robust frame work for my way of thinking so that I can then build upon it with innovative ideas from outside forces.
Homosexuality
After the discussion we had in class about the Lover/Beloved relationship between Parmenides and Zeno, I felt compelled to further examine this subject matter. In the current time period, the relationship between Parmenides and Zeno may strike many people as odd or even morally corrupt simply because of the frequent homosexual tendencies of the time. Dr. Bowery had even mentioned that she felt the need to introduce the homosexual nature of ancient Greek culture so that the class was no longer shocked by the idea when we were introduced to it in the works of Plato. The idea that there was a need to ease the classes’ minds into the homosexual relationships of these Classical philosophers can be very telling on the conceptions of homosexuality that many people currently have. Marriage equality has been a prominent issue for the last several years, with many people fighting vehemently against the idea of allowing homosexual couples the same rights that heterosexual couples may enjoy. There seems to be a strong hate for gays, even though the people fighting against gay rights would be barely affected, if at all, by the allowance of marriage equality. I have no business in the sexual preference of other people; therefore I feel no need to oppress a group of people that deserve the same rights as me.
Students should not be appalled by homosexuality, but they should question the reason for the relationship. If the relationship between these men were strictly based on love, I would understand them much more easily. Since Women were deemed inferior beings and were needed merely for reproduction, they were irrelevant. Women were not allowed the luxury of education; therefore they were restricted from having the intellectual tools to be considered equal to men. Humans constantly strive for one meaningful relationship in their life so that they will be physically and intellectually connected to a person in such a way that they can not conceive the idea of living without that person. I would be much more understanding if homosexuality was practiced because there was a meaningful relationship between two people who were capable of pushing each other intellectually. Instead, the lover/ beloved relationship were usually not based on love.
To have a much older man, who wanted sex from a much younger man in return for knowledge, seems rather corrupt to me. A mentor/ student relationship between two men would make much more sense if the relationship was strictly concerned on the teachings of the student to better function within society. I have often thought that an older, wiser mentor to question my every decision would greatly help my philosophical journey. But in an ideal beloved/lover relationship, the beloved was not supposed to even enjoy the sexual acts they were forced to partake in because the lover was reaping the benefits of his teachings. The older men whom functioned as lovers were misguided for their focus on such lust.
I believe, if someone has an intellectual connection with another person regardless of gender, they should not be disallowed from the freedoms that they rightly deserve as a human being. It seems that the relationships these ancient philosophers had been much more perverse than if the lover was not solely focused only on sex.
Students should not be appalled by homosexuality, but they should question the reason for the relationship. If the relationship between these men were strictly based on love, I would understand them much more easily. Since Women were deemed inferior beings and were needed merely for reproduction, they were irrelevant. Women were not allowed the luxury of education; therefore they were restricted from having the intellectual tools to be considered equal to men. Humans constantly strive for one meaningful relationship in their life so that they will be physically and intellectually connected to a person in such a way that they can not conceive the idea of living without that person. I would be much more understanding if homosexuality was practiced because there was a meaningful relationship between two people who were capable of pushing each other intellectually. Instead, the lover/ beloved relationship were usually not based on love.
To have a much older man, who wanted sex from a much younger man in return for knowledge, seems rather corrupt to me. A mentor/ student relationship between two men would make much more sense if the relationship was strictly concerned on the teachings of the student to better function within society. I have often thought that an older, wiser mentor to question my every decision would greatly help my philosophical journey. But in an ideal beloved/lover relationship, the beloved was not supposed to even enjoy the sexual acts they were forced to partake in because the lover was reaping the benefits of his teachings. The older men whom functioned as lovers were misguided for their focus on such lust.
I believe, if someone has an intellectual connection with another person regardless of gender, they should not be disallowed from the freedoms that they rightly deserve as a human being. It seems that the relationships these ancient philosophers had been much more perverse than if the lover was not solely focused only on sex.
A Routine Malaise
When reading David Roocknik’s assessment of Heraclitus in Retrieving the Ancients, I felt compelled to do further reading on the various views of Heraclitus’ philosophy. Whilst reading a summary of Heraclitus by Professor Daniel Graham of Brigham University (http://www.iep.utm.edu/heraclit/) and reading fragments of Heraclitus’, I became particularly interested in Heraclitus’ inclination concerning the ignorance of human beings. He infers that a bulk of the human race is rather deficient intellectually; lacking any real knowledge. Most people are in a sleep-like state, completely oblivious to the matters in life that will attain them true happiness. Heraclitus can come off rather arrogant in his view that he was one of the few people of his time with any insightful knowledge. Philosophers have been infamously conceited by wholeheartedly believing in their ideas and theories alone, while unapologetically condemning the philosophy of others. It is easy to see how philosophers such as Heraclitus discredit the intellect of the majority because most people refuse to think for themselves. I find the thoughts of Heraclitus to be rather similar to some of the concepts I have been toying around with recently.
Fame, power, money, and physical pleasure are revered among most of society regardless of time period, when realistically most of these things yield mere temporal satisfaction and misguide people down a dreadfully shallow path. I concur with Heraclitus in that a majority of people are vacuous, with their focus on things that are irrelevant and things that will not lead them to any sort of substantial happiness. The world is drowned in mediocrity, with the common person not having the intellectual drive to see beyond the perceptions that they are taught to have by society. Heraclitus quips “Uncomprehending when they have heard, they are like the deaf. The saying describes them: though present they are absent.” The thoughtless aspirations of the masses can be further seen when looking at the college population. The college populace can be a microcosm of the real world. Partying, having sex, and money are often the top priorities of many college students, yet while partaking in these things, they neglect their education that can help them develop new facets of thinking.
The lack of focus by the majority is very reminiscent of Boethius’ conversation with Philosophy herself, when Philosophy was revealing to Boethius that he had lost track of the things that will result in a much more fulfilling life, rather than the things he had been chasing such as money, power and fame. As previously mentioned, many people don’t have the will to break through the barriers that have been placed to keep us in a perfectly constructed box. It is now common for people to lack any ambition to obtain information. Humans no longer feel the need to analyze and comb over the vast amount of brilliant ideas and are content with being indoctrinated by others and not think for themselves. It is important that we do not give in to our laziness and educate ourselves so that we develop the proper tools to think analytically. I yearn to break through this routine malaise and develop my own thoughts, but I realize it is not as easy as it seems.
Fame, power, money, and physical pleasure are revered among most of society regardless of time period, when realistically most of these things yield mere temporal satisfaction and misguide people down a dreadfully shallow path. I concur with Heraclitus in that a majority of people are vacuous, with their focus on things that are irrelevant and things that will not lead them to any sort of substantial happiness. The world is drowned in mediocrity, with the common person not having the intellectual drive to see beyond the perceptions that they are taught to have by society. Heraclitus quips “Uncomprehending when they have heard, they are like the deaf. The saying describes them: though present they are absent.” The thoughtless aspirations of the masses can be further seen when looking at the college population. The college populace can be a microcosm of the real world. Partying, having sex, and money are often the top priorities of many college students, yet while partaking in these things, they neglect their education that can help them develop new facets of thinking.
The lack of focus by the majority is very reminiscent of Boethius’ conversation with Philosophy herself, when Philosophy was revealing to Boethius that he had lost track of the things that will result in a much more fulfilling life, rather than the things he had been chasing such as money, power and fame. As previously mentioned, many people don’t have the will to break through the barriers that have been placed to keep us in a perfectly constructed box. It is now common for people to lack any ambition to obtain information. Humans no longer feel the need to analyze and comb over the vast amount of brilliant ideas and are content with being indoctrinated by others and not think for themselves. It is important that we do not give in to our laziness and educate ourselves so that we develop the proper tools to think analytically. I yearn to break through this routine malaise and develop my own thoughts, but I realize it is not as easy as it seems.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Allow me to introduce myself
My name is Jordan Graham and I am currently a sophomore at Baylor University. I am from Garland, Texas, where I have lived most of my life, but currently live in Waco to attend Baylor. I value my time here at Baylor and I welcome the chance to learn a wide spectrum of things, so that I can better educate myself.
I enjoy and I am very passionate about music. I can listen to anything from Rap music to Classical music and everything in between as long as it is quality music. In general I have always been infatuated with art whether it is music, paintings, film or literature. I love the raw emotions that are expressed in art because they allow the artist to be vulnerable and better relate their life with others.
Sports have also been a main interest in most of my life, with hockey and tennis being at the forefront. I play for the Baylor hockey team and I must say I love that every Wednesday night I get to go play hockey for an hour and a half and only worry about a tiny, black puck.
I am currently a Bio/Pre-Med major, but I have been contemplating the idea of changing my major to Philosophy/Pre-med. In the last year I have been questioning if I want to continue to pursue the medical field or simply choose a new path altogether. One thing I am sure of is that I want to major in Philosophy. Although I am fairly new to this philosophy thing, I thoroughly enjoy it and I believe it plays a crucial role in how I live my life from day to day. I am particularly fond of the works of Nietzsche and Descartes. I concur in their notion that a greater focus should be put upon the world we live in instead of focusing upon the world of the divine, which we will always continue to be ignorant about. Although I do not necessarily agree with some of the works of Ancient Philosophers such as Plato and Socrates, I enjoy reading them and certainly respect their brilliance. I try to be open to different ideologies and beliefs, so that I can push my boundaries and develop previously unconsidered ideas and understand different people’s views and opinions better. I feel a need to be aware of the various philosophies of others, but I refuse to be hindered by the limitations that people try to put on me due to their perceptions. I will always continue to life as I see fit regardless of how other people think or feel about my life style.
I enjoy and I am very passionate about music. I can listen to anything from Rap music to Classical music and everything in between as long as it is quality music. In general I have always been infatuated with art whether it is music, paintings, film or literature. I love the raw emotions that are expressed in art because they allow the artist to be vulnerable and better relate their life with others.
Sports have also been a main interest in most of my life, with hockey and tennis being at the forefront. I play for the Baylor hockey team and I must say I love that every Wednesday night I get to go play hockey for an hour and a half and only worry about a tiny, black puck.
I am currently a Bio/Pre-Med major, but I have been contemplating the idea of changing my major to Philosophy/Pre-med. In the last year I have been questioning if I want to continue to pursue the medical field or simply choose a new path altogether. One thing I am sure of is that I want to major in Philosophy. Although I am fairly new to this philosophy thing, I thoroughly enjoy it and I believe it plays a crucial role in how I live my life from day to day. I am particularly fond of the works of Nietzsche and Descartes. I concur in their notion that a greater focus should be put upon the world we live in instead of focusing upon the world of the divine, which we will always continue to be ignorant about. Although I do not necessarily agree with some of the works of Ancient Philosophers such as Plato and Socrates, I enjoy reading them and certainly respect their brilliance. I try to be open to different ideologies and beliefs, so that I can push my boundaries and develop previously unconsidered ideas and understand different people’s views and opinions better. I feel a need to be aware of the various philosophies of others, but I refuse to be hindered by the limitations that people try to put on me due to their perceptions. I will always continue to life as I see fit regardless of how other people think or feel about my life style.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)